Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Early Word: China Trip Notes

President Obama is wrapping up another full day in China, including meetings with President Hu Jintao followed by a quick session with the news media.

As The Times’s Edward Wong and Helene Cooper reported, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Hu took questions from reporters, but “said in separate speeches that the two nations would work together to stabilize the teetering world economy, contain the dangers of climate change and prevent nuclear proliferation.”

Mr. Obama followed up his time with Mr. Hu by stopping by the Forbidden City and meeting with Chinese Embassy employees and their families. Mr. Obama also met with Wu Bangguo, the chairman of the Chinese parliament, then capped off his night by attending a state dinner.

Mr. Huntsman, who speaks Chinese, seems to be a hit so far in his new position — among other things, he impressed reporters by inviting them to his residence on his first day in China. Those political skills may well come in handy, Ms. Liu finds. “The days of patronizing, the days of table pounding, the days of America wins every negotiation — those days are over,” Mr. Huntsman said.

The budget office analysis of the Senate health care bill, which may be released as early as Tuesday, is expected to have a major impact on how the health care debate proceeds in the chamber.

But no matter what, Ms. Stolberg finds that “Washington’s health care cauldron is an uncomfortable place to be” for Mr. Elmendorf, a Democrat whose earlier scores (as they are known in Washington-speak) have been criticized by his fellow party members and hailed by Republicans.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post’s Shailagh Murray takes a look at another Washington figure playing an outsized role in the health care debate — Senator Blanche Lincoln, a moderate Democrat from Arkansas who faces re-election next year and whose vote Democrats need to reach the magic number of 60.

As Ms. Murray finds, Ms. Lincoln is currently getting heat from both ends of the spectrum: “Democratic activists are incensed that she has turned against the public option, an idea she once supported. Republicans are casting her cautious approach to the health care debate in starkly political terms, saying that she is unwilling to put local interests above those of a president who lost the state by a resounding 20 percentage points.”

The Post has also released a new poll, in conjunction with ABC News, that finds Americans practically split down the middle on the health care proposals currently on the table. “Over the past few months, public opinion has solidified, leaving Obama and the Democrats with the political challenge of enacting one of the most ambitious pieces of domestic legislation in decades in the face of a nation split over the wisdom of doing so,” write Dan Balz and Jon Cohen.

With discussion over abortion provisions in health care legislation still raging, David Rogers of Politico examines the Roman Catholic Church’s role in that debate — both now and in past decades.

The Palin Files: As you might have heard, a certain former Alaska governor was on Oprah Winfrey‘s show on Monday, in advance of the release of her book, “Going Rogue.”

As The Times’s Alessandra Stanley saw it, Ms. Winfrey treated Sarah Palin “with guarded civility and thinly veiled skepticism.” For her part, The Los Angeles Times’s Mary McNamara asserted that “the two were quite fascinating to watch together, steel-spined divas treating each other with a graciousness Jane Austen would appreciate.”

The Wall Street Journal’s Peter Wallsten, meanwhile, examines whether Ms. Palin’s book tour is designed to gin up excitement for a 2012 presidential run. “So far, the answer appears to be no, at least according to Republican activists in Iowa and New Hampshire,” he writes.

And, with “Going Rogue” available in bookstores starting Tuesday, Jonathan Martin and Andy Barr of Politico take an early look at who Ms. Palin praises (John and Cindy McCain) and who bears the brunt of her criticism (Katie Couric and McCain campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt).

Paterson Strikes: Gov. David A. Paterson of New York rebuked the Obama administration for deciding to try some suspects linked to the 9/11 attacks in Manhattan, which, The Times’s Danny Hakim reports, “made him one of a few Democrats to take that stand and underscored his schism with the White House.”

Lawyer Flap: The Times’s Julia Preston examines late-breaking criticism over Mr. Obama’s choice for a U.S. attorney in Iowa — Stephanie Rose — who some lawyers say was too harsh in her prosecution of illegal immigrants found working at a meatpacking plant in the state.

Impeachment Inquiry: The House Judiciary Committee holds a hearing Tuesday to discuss possible impeachment proceedings against G. Thomas Porteous Jr., a United States District Court judge from Louisiana.

Confirmation Vote?: The Senate is expected later on Tuesday to move forward with votes on the nomination of Judge David F. Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit appeals court. On Monday, Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, urged a filibuster of the nominee although Mr. Sessions conceded it wouldn’t be successful. Mr. Hamilton also received more backing from his home-state Republican senator, Richard Lugar.

Popular Vote: The American Constitution Society hosts a panel discussing the National Popular Vote movement, which looks to ensure that the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes always captures the White House.

Palin has botched her reentry into the public arena. She is simply the same whiny, overmatched figure she was during last year’s campaign. Americans do not care for someone so wrapped up in their own perceived slights and ongoing grudges. The book and her appearance on Oprah were absolute disasters.

She would have been better served spending the last year studying up and then dishing out actual policy advice or proposals. Americans want results, not a soap opera.

In public, the Chinese were gracious to President Obama, and allowed him to end his visit with a nice glow. Let’s hope that in private, Hu gave Obama a stern lecture on deficit spending and the printing of U.S. dollars.

Doing business with China is not optional for the world and specially for the US but China in many ways a authoritarian state with little regards to human rights, liberty and justice therefore it is very conceivable in the future, China will rise to overthrow governments, crush oppositions and slave humanity. This has been predicted.

Maybe Obama can sign a backroom deal with the Chinese just like he did with big pharmacy. He tends to believe anyone with money and is easily manipulated so this is a perfect chance to sell out our country even further.

The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by eight state legislative chambers, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

A popular vote would have at least one very unfortunate consequence: the end of retail politics: No more frantically crisscrossing Florida and Ohio, trying to cajole every last possible vote out of every last senior center. No more crisscrossing anywhere. Campaigning would quickly be reduced to TV commercials, TV commercials, and more TV commercials, and voters would be reduced to “eyeballs” — since this would be far more cost-effective and efficient. In an era where geography didn’t matter, no place would be very important at all, except, of course, for the zip codes where the big campaign donors live.

I would much rather see electoral votes recalibrated, so a vote in North Dakota doesn’t carry twice as much weight as a vote in New York. That alone would prevent a future Bush v. Gore, and it would keep the candidates on those (admittedly ridiculous) campaign buses, talking to real live people, face to face.

Under the current system of electing the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…